Aksis
Welcome, Aksis, to Wikipedia, the greatest encyclopedia on Earth! You seem to be off to a good start. Hopefully you will soon join the vast army of Wikipediholics! You may wish to review the welcome page, tutorial, and stylebook, as well as the avoiding common mistakes and Wikipedia is not pages. The Wikipedia directory is also quite useful.
By the way, an important tip: To sign comments on talk pages, simply type four tildes, like this: ~~~~. This will automagically add your name and the time after your comments.
To basically understand the principles and rules governing Wikipedia, you should take a look the Five Pillars that underlie all rules here.
Finally, here are some jobs that you can work on in your spare time:
You can help improve the articles listed below! This list updates frequently, so check back here for more tasks to try. (See Wikipedia:Maintenance or the Task Center for further information.)
Help counter systemic bias by creating new articles on important women.
Help improve popular pages, especially those of low quality.
Hope to see you around the Wiki! And if you have any questions whatsoever, or would just like to drop me a note, feel free to contact me on my talk page!Talk page use
editPlease don't re-order talk pages. And please put new stuff at the end. Thank you, William M. Connolley (talk) 23:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
June 2008
edit
3RR violation, per a report at WP:AN3. EdJohnston (talk) 04:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Aksis (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
It was not I that was causing the edit war, I was being ganged up on. Do review the talk page, note the frivolous and unreasonable actions of the 2 users that were reported, reverse this decision, restore the page, and protect it from the vandalism.
Decline reason:
No, it doesn't work that way. If your edits are being opposed by multiple editors, you need to discuss and get consensus; repeatedly reverting is going to get you into trouble, not the people opposing your changes. That's what the 3RR is for; it stopped you from continuing the edit war. If you'll agree to stop edit warring, you'll be unblocked. Otherwise, sit out the 24 hours; but if you come back and do the same thing that got you blocked, you'll be blocked again for a longer period. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Aksis (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I looked over the policy and I was, in fact, in violation (guess it doesn't work cumulatively when a couple of users gang up). I have no problem ending the "edit war". I am some what pressed for time and am still looking over all the steps of the resolution process. Truth be told, I did initiate the discussion, it was mostly one sided and they simply kept deleting the work I did with no valid justification. Truth be told, I am more interested in the deleted work I did being restored and protected at this point then having the block removed. What steps would I take at this point to effect this end?Aksis (talk) 06:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Looking at the long comment below I agree with EdJohnson and am not confident there is interest in pursuing consensus or compromise. — chaser - t 14:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
I've contacted the blocking administrator. My take of this situation is that you still need citations for the second paragraph and the second part of the third paragraph in this version of the article. Per Wikipedia:Lead_section#Citations, it's not necessary to cite the lead where the material is already cited in the body of the article or is unlikely to be challenged, but I don't see any cites for it. If you're having trouble with one or two other editors, you can get more attention from uninvolved parties by filing a Requests for comment, but I don't think you're there yet. For now try to add citations and look at the original research policy. If you're not sure why it is original research, ask the other editors for clarification. BTW, although it would have been better if someone else had said it, William M. Connolley is right about civility in his post below. The best way to respond to other editors' curtness is to ignore it and be civil in return.--chaser - t 09:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
- RE: The Decline reason
Looking at the long comment below I agree with EdJohnson and am not confident there is interest in pursuing consensus or compromise.
- Chaser, You're absolutely right. I am completely unwilling to compromise on the facts of the matter. If that is what you were expecting (which I hope is not the case), then you will be disappointed.
- Do note, that upon a complete review of the matter at hand (not just the angry rebuke below), I am the only one *proven* to have been willing to compromise (as evidenced by a willingness to remove the portion of the work being called "blather" and opening the door for discussion about it all), and, I was the only one that presented a viable solution to the root of the problem, namely, the root of the problem being the arbitrary limitation of the subject matter of this article to "political philosophy". The other 2 people involved in this matter simply kept deleting the work and then finally started making a baseless claim of OR and using wiki customs/rules to support "their" biased and continual deletions of the competent work I did on the article.
- My shortcoming and why I am the one blocked, was a lack of clarity on a fine point regarding wikipedia customs/rules. It seemed to me that common sense would prevail, and that 2 people ganging up on one to maintain an obvious bias in an article would have been seen as the larger issue and that their blaring lack of a willingness to discuss or compromise would have been obvious.
- Talk about adding insult to injury! Aksis (talk) 23:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Civility warning
editAccusing people of lying and vandalising [1] (when all they are doing is opposing your edits) and being childish is liable to be seen as a violation of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL - please be more cautious. You won't get any sympathy that way William M. Connolley (talk) 06:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
- William, Seeing as your remark about "blather", when you deleted the work I did in the first place, (which was more then that single paragraph you were calling "blather", btw) was a violation of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL you have a lot of nerve warning me about "Civility".
- The accusations of lying and vandalizing are fact, not a plea for sympathy.
- I would have no problem if there was some valid basis for the oppositions to my edits, but all you and Bkwillwm did was delete ALL the work, and then, when pressed for an explanation, erected strawman arguments that lacked merit and attempt to limit the state_of_Nature page (which is a topic MUCH broader then "political philosophy") to nothing more then "political philosophy", which is not presenting a neutral point of view (you're bias is towards "political philosophy" and as you did a lot of work on the Leviathan page, I presume specifically you are biased toward Hobbes' POV), and if you must persist in this limitation, then you are free to create and develop the state_of_Nature-philosophy page and limit the subject matter of that page to the narrow view of "political philosophy"... rather then keep vandalizing the page... out of what? Spite? A power trip of some sort?
"Don't remove the facts of what the state of Nature is. The base reality must be presented before the philosophy, or in other words, you can't put the actors on stage if their is no stage. Aksis (talk) 09:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I didn't realise you were in a position to give orders on this page. It makes it so much easier when someone is, don't you find? William M. Connolley (talk) 23:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- You and Bkwillwm disregarded and delete axioms and points sooo obvious they didn't need citations (but I did, in fact, provide citations... which you also deleted!!!) and then, get this, Bkwillwm says something this stupid (and yes, it truly is stupid - not to be rude):
"There are no citations in your first two paragraphs except for a dictionary definition of "nature," which doesn't help establish the meaning of "state of nature.""
- Huh?!?!?!?! I can NOT humor this as being sound of mind or a voice of someone who is competent. Do I really need to additionaly cite the definition of the word "state"? Did I even need to cite the definition of "Nature"? No.
- From what I have seen so far, you have no interest in being civil or rational and at this point, I am livid! You have wasted many hours of my very valuable time. You have shown no interest in discussing the facts or even allowing them to remain on the page. I supported every point with citations (and seeing as how they were the bulk of the citations for a page flagged for lacking them), you still deleted the work, and then want to pretend that you are being "civil" or mature.
- Open an article about the state of Nature with a postulation of theory and false claims is a mistake:
"State of nature is a term in political philosophy used in social contract theories to describe the hypothetical condition of humanity before the state's foundation and its monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force. In a broader sense, a state of nature is the condition before the rule of positive law comes into being, thus being a synonym of anarchy."
- 1) Before Hobbes ever wrote about the state of nature, it existed, and this term "state of nature" is simply a synonym for the term "universe", or, for those lacking much of a view of the "big picture", Earth.
- 2) There is nothing hypothetical about the condition (state) of humanity in Nature before the creation of "political corporations" (you never left the state of Nature, you simply make believe you live in "imaginary bubble", it is truly a form of "group psychosis" when you cut to the quick - the fact is that "Nation States" are "hypothetical", the entire theory of jurisprudence regarding "artificial persons" makes this quite clear).
- 3) You are blurring the lines between "reality" and "fiction"... albeit "legal fiction", but fiction none the less.
- 4) You ignorantly cast the state of Nature in the light of being lawless due to a lack of research of law when you make the false and baseless characterization of it being an "anarchy".
- The only portion of the initial statement that is true is that the "State of nature is a term in political philosophy used in social contract theories", but that is only one of many many places that this term is used.
SoN/OR
editPlease stop adding your OR to the SoN article or you'll get blocked for disruption.
Adding the RFC to the talk page is better, though doomed William M. Connolley (talk) 23:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
- Seeing as how I haven't added any (WP:NOTOR#Compiling_facts_and_information), no problem. Kindly cease deleting verified facts with unsupported theory. The theory and philosophy belongs in the respective authors sub-sections.
- Further, in your cavalier deletions, you have started deleting a new section I am working on as well. It is unrelated to the prolepsis you keep deleting. While you seem to know a lot about Hobbes, you also seem to be making the false assumption that he was the first "philosopher" to contemplate the state of Nature and the life of man in the state of Nature.
- If you would like to discuss this further, do join in on the Discussion already happening on the Talk:State_of_nature page. Thanks for you interest.
Aksis (talk) 06:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
state of nature
editcould you please put your notes on vattel in a subsection? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.114.244.195 (talk) 10:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
they are really insightful. for me it is kind of discovery. but it was tooooo long, too many citations. please open new subsection on vattel --77.113.15.245 (talk) 22:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)